andrewstewart

Okay, I'm confused ;-| Can someone explain to me why a left rear riser correction would result in a turn to the right?

Was this data ever made public by BR?

Worked fine for me after a 1 second delay and a 3 second delay, but I had a head-high body orientation in both occasions which might have helped.

Sweet, I didn't know that. Thanks.

Does anyone jump with contact lenses on short delays, slider off? (i.e. 1 or 2 seconds). Specifically, the 'soft' type of contact lenses (daily disposables). Any issues? Probably not, but I thought I'd ask to see. Cheers, - A

I don't know if it's possible to wear knee pads underneath the Birdman Pantz and still have them be effective, but on a terminal wall where Pantz would allow you to get more separation from the object, would you rather go with the Pantz or wear kneepads for safety? I appreciate that obviously the site being jumped will be a huge influence on your decision, so for the sake of argument let's use the most popular terminal wall in Norway as the example site (or feel free to make up your own), and also assume that you have practiced with Pantz are capable of flying them effectively. I'm just trying to get a sense for the tradeoff that exists here. (Or if none exists, let me know why!) Thanks, - Andrew

Well, I agree with you on that point.

You don't know how much the baton assault contributed to his death, do you? Other "heavy contributors" to his death could have been the PCP, the coke, and his enlarged heart. - Jim True, but it's unlikely that he was just going to drop dead that night. I'm thinking that the ten minute beating might have had something to do with it.

Yet, you find it your responsibility to critsize and condemn those that are required to do something that you will not or cannot do yourself. Yes, I criticize the fact that their chosen method killed the guy (or at least was a heavy contributor). If you are the police and your methods result in the death of a person, I don't think it's unreasonable to say: "why don't you investigate your methods?". But I suspect that there will be no such investigation/analysis because of the prevailing mood (as exemplified by your own attitude) which is to simply say that "the guy had it coming".

From my post, for hopefully the last time: That's not my job. It IS the police's job though. It is the job of the police to create appropriate strategies for dealing with situations; one's that don't end up with someone being killed unless absolutely necessary. Again - you avoid. Ok, in real simple words. You say that you are not paid to think up new options. We don't care. We do care about what you would do in thier place, since you condemn their actions. It would seem that you are afraid to answer that question. It would also seem that your argument holds no weight without alternative solutions. I would have hypnotized him - does that make you happy? The responsibility for how to figure out a way to subdue someone without killing them is not mine, it is the police's.

Absolutely not. So what is your solution then? Jeezus. From post #109: Strangely, I don't get paid to sit around thinking about how to subdue suspects in a way that doesn't either cause or contribute to their death. That's not my job. It IS the police's job though. The chosen method of the police, as graphically demonstrated, is to hit someone with a metal stick until they are "subdued" (or dead, in this case). To have that be the textbook approach is negligent in itself. It is the job of the police to create appropriate strategies for dealing with situations; one's that don't end up with someone being killed unless absolutely necessary. They obviously haven't done that, otherwise Nathaniel Jones would be alive right now. We are all aware of what you posted in #109. LMAO - Perhaps you could quote this back to us and HIGHLIGHT what it is in these paragraphs that you have written that describes what you would have done, as opposed to what you are not paid to do, thus, fulfilling the answer to the question.. From my post, for hopefully the last time: That's not my job. It IS the police's job though. It is the job of the police to create appropriate strategies for dealing with situations; one's that don't end up with someone being killed unless absolutely necessary.

Absolutely not. So what is your solution then? Jeezus. From post #109: Strangely, I don't get paid to sit around thinking about how to subdue suspects in a way that doesn't either cause or contribute to their death. That's not my job. It IS the police's job though. The chosen method of the police, as graphically demonstrated, is to hit someone with a metal stick until they are "subdued" (or dead, in this case). To have that be the textbook approach is negligent in itself. It is the job of the police to create appropriate strategies for dealing with situations; one's that don't end up with someone being killed unless absolutely necessary. They obviously haven't done that, otherwise Nathaniel Jones would be alive right now.

No, I'm just answering it in a way that you don't want to hear. How many times do I have to reiterate the same point?

Absolutely not.

That's quite an assumption. My point is that I think it's unlikely that the authorities will even consider investigating other tactics; and part of that is because no-one seems to be able to entertain the idea that there has to a better way to subdue someone other than to hit them for 10 minutes with metal clubs.

See my post #109 - prior to yours.

I also asked that question. He ignored it, refusing to try to put himself in that position makes it easier for him to bash the officers invovled. I didn't ignore it. I had to get on a plane (and I didn't get to jump out of it either). Strangely, I don't get paid to sit around thinking about how to subdue suspects in a way that doesn't either cause or contribute to their death. That's not my job. It IS the police's job though. If the current 'state of the art' technique is to have a bunch of cops hit the suspect with metal sticks until they are "subdued" (or in this case: dead), then I think there is something very, very wrong. Saying something like "he had it coming" is the same as saying "he deserved to die" ("he was on drugs! he hit a cop!"). Well, I don't think he deserved to die, and I find it amazing that I seem to be the only person who thinks that.

True, all settlements are justified and no settlement has ever been made for political or PR reasons. It's really nice to be in a society where frivolous lawsuits never happen. True, but there were two settlements to two different parties.

Ah, you must be refering to the institutionalized approach of an officer defending himself/herself. Silly us. Yes that's exactly what I was refering to.

Can I call'em or what? Its like a deja vu statment from one of my very own posts. Bwahhahahahaha Well at least you keep yourself amused.

Firstly, you don't pay someone $3,000,000 in a settlement unless you messed up. You seem to think that it's impossible for the Cincinnati police to ever make a mistake. And I didn't say that those particular cops were involved in a previous shooting (although they might have been). I said that I wouldn't be surprised if the courts determine that there is an institutionalized approach within the police dept that that ends up with people being unnecessarily killed.

You could give me your entire "baton resume" and I would still disagree with your statement that being hit with a baton only "lightly hurts".

That's for the courts to decide, ultimately. But I wouldn't be surprised if the courts statement is that the determine that the city police department has an institutionalized problem with their approach to this kind of incident, given their past history (18 black men killed by police since 1995) and the past financial settlements (the City has had to pay out over 3 million dollars for these types of case since 1999).

Obviously huh? Well you're wrong (not unsual for you, I have to say). I have trained with a baton as part of my Jiu-Jitsu.

I'm surprised that you would even care if he was in pain ot not, since your initial response in post #24 was to just say "Fuck him".